There is no reason to require less than a majority of
committee members in place to conduct committee business,
especially since on-line votes are available for ALL committee
members to participate in a decision, including those who may
not be able to make a particular teleconference.
Again, this is a thinly veiled attempt to consolidate power in
fewer and few hands.
I am really disappointed we keep seeing so many rule changes
mean to reward infighting, and so little actual electoral
strategy in the party.
Background
This proposal has been brought forth because in recent years
a number of standing committees of the Green Party of
California (GPCA) have been unable to conduct any business
for lengthy periods of time due to failure to reach quorum.
This state of affairs has often impeded the GPCA
Coordinating Committee (CC) from fulfilling its own
responsibilities per GPCA Bylaw 8-1.7
This is NOT true. The CC has not had a quorum issue.
(“Request and receive reports
from Committees and Working Groups, refer matters to them,
and monitor and assist their work”). GPCA standing
committees are capped, for gender balance, at an even number
of members,
This is yet another case where the sponsors don’t know what
they are talking about. GPCA standing committees are NOT
capped to promote gender balance. Only the CC has a gender
balance requirement. All other committees do not.
and currently establish
quorum at a majority of voting members. This proposed
amendment would establish the minimum quorum at least 50% of
standing committees’ voting membership.
This is just a move for the other committees to have a lower
participation threshold, to make it easier for a smaller
number of people to push things through when others aren’t on
a particular teleconference.
This proposal would also clarify an ambiguity in notice
requirements for calling meetings. The language of GPCA
Bylaw 9-3.1 is silent regarding notice requirements for
standing committees that establish regular meeting
schedules. In practice, most if not all standing committees
establish regular meeting schedules for their work year.
The proposed language would make explicit that two weeks’
notice is required for meetings that fall outside a standing
committee’s regular meeting schedule, should one be set.
If people think establishing regular meeting schedules is
appropriate, THAT is what should have been submitted here, not
this rule change.
For all these reasons, I am voting no
Mike Feinstein
SGA Delegate, GPLAC
Proposal
That GPCA Bylaw Article 9-3 be amended as follows:
That Article 9-3 be amended from its current text:
Section 9-3 Meetings
9-3.1 Committees shall meet during GPCA state meetings, on
teleconferences and otherwise as necessary to achieve the
objectives outlined in its work plan. Meetings must be
called with a minimum of two weeks notice to committee
members.
9-3.2 The decision-making process for committees shall
follow that described for the General Assembly in 7-5.5.
Quorum is a majority of the committee's voting membership.
To read as follows:
Section 9-3 Meetings
9-3.1 Committees shall meet during GPCA state meetings, on
teleconferences and otherwise as necessary to achieve the
objectives outlined in their work plans. Meetings outside
any regular meeting schedule shall be called with a minimum
of two weeks notice to committee members.
9-3.2 The decision-making process for committees shall
follow that described for the General Assembly in 7-5.5.
Quorum shall be at least 50% of the committee's voting
membership.
Sponsors: The proposed amendment has been endorsed and
sponsored by the Green Party of Butte County and the Green
Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at:
http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
Please send your discussion comments to
gpca-votes@sfgreens.org